As a youth minister, I have seen many people argue that "kids these days" (how many generations have said this one) have no clue how to interact with one another, or society as a whole, anymore because they spend too much time on FaceTwitGram! I wrote a post in my (completely online) PhD class about the pitfalls of this thinking. What follows is that post along with APA references so if you read it, ignore the academic legalities. ;) I would be interested in hearing your thoughts...
lyle
There are many ways to connect with another through the use of technological advances that have only exploded in the last 20 years. Several of these connections have prompted a sense of relational “community” that mimics, in some way, the real relational connections that occur face to face. I would propose that these connections are not mimicry at all but, rather, are just as real, albeit different, as face to face forms of relational community.
Baym (2010) puts forth several points of similarity between the face to face “I-You encounter” (Meek, 2011, p.401) and the virtual sense of community that exists in a seemingly “other” world. To understand how this is possible, one must first examine the very nature of knowing and how reality plays into it. It should be noted that the very premise of incongruence permeating the sense of community on both sides of the technological divide is not a new notion. Baym (2010) points out that Socrates had some flavored words to say about the creation of a written alphabet, which is a “technology, because it depends upon the use of special tools such as a pen and paper or brushes and animal skins” (Hipps, 2006, p.48). She states thus: “The language and forms of evidence may have changed, but the concern that communication technologies make us dumber is as old as writing” (Baym, 2010, p.26). People throughout history have always been skeptical of new technologies that invite a way of knowing previously unexperienced.
The nature of knowing anything, then, is summed best by Meek (2011) as she states:
Knowing connects knower and known via a normative constituting, which in turn bespeaks a covenantal context. Covenant presupposes persons in relationship, a dynamically unfolding relationship whose goal is the mutuality of ongoing communion. (p. 403)
This connection then, is one that can be perpetuated as the knower and known have an encounter. In the mind of the knower, this encounter can be real as long as it has merit and significance regardless of medium. Thus, one can posit that knowing has certain qualities that have nothing to do with medium and yet, at the same time, the medium can be an inseparable part of the knowing. The fallacy occurs when one equates the medium with the whole of knowing rather than a tool to create new forms of it.
Stemming from the rational stoic philosophers is the idea that there can only be one “right way” of knowing anything. Palmer (2011) states otherwise: “one of our problems in Western culture is that we see things in terms of ‘either/or’ rather than ‘both/and.’” Sometimes the ways of knowing anything can be stretched to include new forms while keeping the same qualities. Baym (2011) identifies these qualities and their impact on the ways that people know and interpret community. In speaking in terms of geographical space, for example, she notes that “most online groups are not so tied to geographical space, yet people who are involved in online groups often think of them as shared spaces” (p.75). The social capital that can be enhanced in these shared spaces brings people together in ways that no one has ever experienced before from all over the world due to the fluid nature of the Internet’s ability to bridge gaps between cultures and people groups. “Bridging capital is exchanged between people who differ from one another and do not share strong relationships. The Internet lends itself to and expands the potential for this kind of capital” (p.82).
Medium, then, does not matter with regards to people’s ability to make connections. Thus, in this virtual world, the nature of relational epistemology as put forth by Meek (2010) is not harmed in any way so long as those who chose not to utilize the media of technology don’t make it an issue of fellowship for those who do.
I think we all can exist on both sides of the digital divide under the poignant words of Jesus: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35, NASB).
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity.
Hipps, S. (2006). The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Meek, E. (2011). Loving to Know: Covenant Epistemology. Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. [Kindle Edition].
New American Standard Bible. (1995). 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
Palmer, P. (2011) Spiritual Journey. Online. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzvfxzSCtg
Comments
Post a Comment